What most Super Bowl ad results studies fail to address is the true effectiveness of the ad. In other words, did it sell stuff for the brand? Only the brand can truthfully tell us that. But that hasn't stopped anyone placing various levels of credence on any study that happens to find its way to a press release.

Not that anyone cares three weeks after the game but a recent study conducted by Sands research using lectroencephalography (EEG) recordings and eye-tracking found VW's Punch Dub commercial to be the top ad. By quite a margin. That ad was followed by Vizio's Frge, Budweiser's Bridge, Google's Parisian Love and Brigstone's Whale of a Tail.

Sand Research Chairman and Chief Science Officer Stephen Sands explained the study's methodology, saying, "By conducting neuromedia analysis based on EEG readings rather than recall or more unreliable instant analysis peripheral measures such as heart rate, we are able to effectively determine the dimensions on which commercials are engaging viewers, and also an ad's chance for success."

Um...whatever. These studies are like advertising awards. They are pointless and mean nothing. The only thing that matters is sales. OK, maybe some squishy brand identity bullshit is fine once in a while when the stock price needs to be tweaked but an ad's "creativity," it's "recall" or its "likability" has little do do with the all important bottom line.

So while Bob Garfield was on a plane during the Super Bowl (yes, beyond all fathomable reason, this is true), thus missing the fact Google ran a commercial (only to review it a week later), Old Spice's "I'm on a Horse" should have been in the game. During this week's Beancast (summarized here), it was agreed the Old Spice commercial would have been a standout hit in the game. It poked fun at the whole metrosexual thing but in a way that was humorous to all.

But, back to what I was talking about. Bob Garfield, the industry's preeminent ad commentator was on a plane during the Super Bowl. On a plane as in not watching the game. As in not watching the year's biggest pantheon of advertising. As in not doing his job.

Last night, I was part of this week's Beancast with Bob Knorpp. Along with Adland's Ask Wappling, Make the Logo Bigger's Bill Green and AdScam's George Parker we skewered this year's Super Bowl commercials, Crapped on Google's Buzz and laughed at Edelman's study which claimed, in a nutshell, no one trusts their friends' recommendations any more.

In terms of the best Super Bowl commercial, we agreed Google was it. It was one of the few commercial that actually explained how the product worked and what it's benefit could be to people. The commercial wasn't perfect. There was debate on it's effectiveness in terms of the attention level it required to understand it and how that might be difficult during a drunken Super Bowl party. But George Parker made the point that, well, that's the point. The game and the commercial scream at you for three hours. The Google ad was a welcome and calming interlude between all the screaming. In that respect, it may have commanded a bit more attention that, say, Betty White getting thrown to the ground.

Now this is our kind of Super Bowl commercial survey. Any panel that gives the top slot to a commercial in which a bitchy hottie wearing a miniskirt is the central character gets out vote. Of course, if the same survey gives the third place spot to Focus on Family, we might have to reconsider.

Using its SocialSense listening platform, Networked insights dubbed the Teleflora commercial the "biggest winner" of the game. But for a survey that seems to favor hot women, it's a shocker the Motorola commercial featuring Megan Fox was the "biggest loser."

No wonder people don't trust research. If we can't find a universal love for hotness, there's really no point in trying to find a universal love for anything else.

And you know what else is weird about this study? Teleflora. Motorola.The winner and the loser rhyme. When does that ever happen?

She said: "See I told you we deserved a Dodge Charger just as much as you do."

He said, "But, honey, it's your job to pretend we are perfect and that you love everything you do. Not to mention feel 'so fucking sorry' for us when Super Bowl commercials depict men as emasculated and oppressed."

So yea. Another copycat accusation. As malicious as these things can be, most of the time, they are pure coincidence. Most people aren't stupid enough to blatantly rip of another's work. Well, at least we like to hope that's the case.

Anyway, the current copycat of the month is, allegedly, Weiden + Kennedy which has been accused of copying a 2002 Israeli Yotvata milk commercial created by Young and Rubicam. The ad in question is W+K's Sleepwalker ad for Coke.

For its part, Weiden + Kennedy said, "When we created the Coca-Cola 'Sleepwalker' commercial we and our agency were unaware of this other ad," Coca-Cola representative Susan Stribling wrote in an email. "Now that we've seen the ad, we think both commercials are equally entertaining. While the two share a few common elements, any similarities are coincidental and unintended."

Yup. It was predictable. A cause group has, in a way, thanked Denny's for bringing the plight of chickens to the forefront of the public's mind. As you recall, Denny's poked fun at what chickens would have to go through to lay all the eggs needed for the company's Grand Slam breakast promotion.

Farm Sanctuary President and Co-Founder Gene Baur said, "In a surprise move, Denny's, home of the Grand Slam breakfast, inadvertently delivered a powerful animal protection message to millions of Super Bowl fans during Sunday's game between the Saints and the Colts. I say 'surprise' because it's not every day that a major restaurant chain makes a public acknowledgment (and during the Super Bowl no less) of the animal suffering that goes into the creation of their menu items, but that is precisely what Denny's did with their 'Chicken Warning' ads."

Baur added, "Denny's (however unintentionally) made the connection between animal suffering and the food on their menu, giving viewers a glimpse at the nasty truth behind eggs."

Will anyone think twice the next time they order scrambled eggs? We think not.

Every year we talk about the Super Bowl. Mostly for its entertainment value as compared to the blood, sweat and tears of the play-off season. As far as football itself goes I'm a fan of two teams: the Patriots (don't get me started on their 09-10 season) and whatever team is making Peyton Manning cry. This year's Super Bowl was good for that.

While the game sometimes offers up some action, each year we gather 'round the onion dip mostly to watch and talk about the ads. This year was no different. In terms of the ads, we had a few of the usual stand bys: Celebrity Sightings, Babes in Bikinis, and Stupid Human Tricks (category renamed from the former: Guys Doing Stupid Shit). All were present and accounted for in this year's game too. In this wrap up report, here's the good, the bad and the ugly.

There were no standouts,commercially speaking, in last night's Super Bowl. Unless of course, you believe USA Today's Ad Meter which ranked the Betty white/Abe Vigoda number one. Or if you believe the Mullen/radian6 Brand Bowl which, through social media comment and positive sentiment, gave top honors to Doritos (the brand, not an individual spot). Or if you place credence in Bob Garfield's watch-them-all-before-the-game approach then the top slot goes to Audi.

Or if you are a fan of Adland's Ask Wappling, the love went to Volkswagon's Punch Buggy ad. Or of you can't get enough of Make the Logo Bigger's Bill Green then it's Google's Parisian ad. Or if Hulu is your gig, then the top slot was Doritos to own for its consumer-generated House Rules ad. Betty White's Snickers ad and Google's search ad faired well there too. As did the hottie-in-a-tub Megan Fox ad for Motorola...which distracted us enough to mostly miss the VW Punch Buggy ad which followed. We know. Predictable behavior around here at Adrants.

Or if you can't get enough Barbara Lippert, Budweiser's Clydsdales or Bud Light's Asteroid. Or, well, she really isn't clear on which one she liked best. (In a later article, she named Google her fave.) Or if you're a commenter on Bob Garfield's Ad review, then honors, it would seem, should go to Google. Bob didn't even comment on the spot because, well, he watches all the ads (at least the ones that have been released), forms his opinion and files his story before the kick off. he misses in-game context and late/un-released commercials.

But it's not just a movie commercial! Which we don't even pay attention to. It's an ad for the new Universal Studios Harry Potter attraction, The Wizarding World of Harry Potter. So pay attention to this. Oh wait. Don't bother. It's lame. If you've seen any of the movies, you've seen this ad.

But the ad was done by a tiny shop outside London called Rosso Media which created, shot and post-produced. So be nice. Oh wait, We weren't very nice. Sorry guys.